Skip to content
Back to skills

Test Driven Development

ASecurity

Use when implementing deterministic, reusable code where regressions would warrant a CI red light. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR. Applicability rule and skip conditions inside.

  • 47 stars
  • 0 votes
  • 0 copies
  • 2 views
  • Added September 9, 2026
testingpythongotestingapi

Works with

  • api

Security analysis

A100/100

Scanned September 9, 2026

npx -y skills add btseytlin/ultrapack --skill test-driven-development --agent claude-code

Installs into .claude/skills of the current project.

Are you the author of Test Driven Development?

Add the live security badge to your README. It updates with every re-scan.

Security grade badge for Test Driven Development
[![Security: A — Skills Directory](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/api/skills/btseytlin-test-driven-development/badge)](https://www.skillsdirectory.com/skills/btseytlin-test-driven-development)

More formats (shields.io, HTML) on the badges page. Keep it an A: scan every change in CI with Pro.

Download with Pro
SKILL.md
---
name: test-driven-development
description: Use when implementing deterministic, reusable code where regressions would warrant a CI red light. Enforces RED-GREEN-REFACTOR. Applicability rule and skip conditions inside.
---

# Test-Driven Development

Write the test first. Watch it fail. Write minimal code to pass. Refactor. Repeat.

**Core principle:** if you didn't watch the test fail, you don't know whether it tests the right thing.

## Applicability — invoke only when all three hold

<applies-when>
1. The code produces specific outputs for specific inputs (deterministic I/O contract)
2. It is called from more than one place (library code, API method, utility, validator)
3. A regression here would warrant a CI red light
</applies-when>

## Skip conditions — do not invoke when any holds

<skip-when>
- Training a model, hyperparameter tuning, anything stochastic with no "correct" output
- Exploratory data analysis (you're figuring out what's in the data)
- One-off scripts or throwaway prototypes
- Research / experiment code
- UI changes where the real test is "does it look right"
</skip-when>

The decision is recorded during `up:udesign` as `TDD: yes` or `TDD: no (reason)`.

## Iron law when applicable — no production code without a failing test first

Wrote code before the test? Delete it. Start over from the test. Don't "adapt" what you wrote — the test will be shaped by the code instead of shaping it.

## Phase 1 — RED: write a failing test

- One behavior per test
- Clear name describing the behavior
- Real code path where possible; mocks only when genuinely unavoidable

```python
def test_retry_succeeds_after_two_failures():
    attempts = 0
    def op():
        nonlocal attempts
        attempts += 1
        if attempts < 3:
            raise RuntimeError("fail")
        return "success"
    assert retry(op, max_attempts=3) == "success"
    assert attempts == 3
```

## Phase 2 — Verify RED: run it, confirm it fails for the right reason

<required>
- It fails (not an import/syntax error)
- The failure reason is "feature missing", not a typo
- The error message matches what you expected
</required>

Test passed immediately? You're testing behavior that already exists. Fix the test.

## Phase 3 — GREEN: minimal code to pass

```python
def retry(op, max_attempts):
    for i in range(max_attempts):
        try:
            return op()
        except Exception:
            if i == max_attempts - 1:
                raise
    raise RuntimeError("unreachable")
```

Don't add features, options, or "while I'm here" changes. Just pass the test.

## Phase 4 — Verify GREEN: run it, confirm it passes, nothing else broke

Run the new test and the existing suite. If either fails: back to GREEN (not RED — don't change the test).

## Phase 5 — REFACTOR: clean up with tests green

Names, duplication, helpers. Keep tests green. Don't add behavior in this step. Then loop back to RED for the next test.

## Good tests

<good-test>
- Minimal — one behavior per test. If "and" appears in the name, split.
- Clear — name describes what it checks.
- Real — exercises actual code, not mocks pretending to be code.
</good-test>

## Red flags — stop and start over

<red-flags>
- You wrote code before the test
- A test passes immediately on first run
- You can't explain why a test failed the way it did
- You're keeping old code "as reference" while writing tests — delete it
- You're "adapting" existing code while writing tests — that's tests-after, not TDD
</red-flags>

## Why order matters

Tests-after answer: *what does this do?*
Tests-first answer: *what should this do?*

Tests-after are biased by the implementation you already wrote. Tests-first force edge-case discovery before you commit to a design.

## When stuck

- Don't know how to test: write the wished-for API in the test first; let it drive the implementation shape
- Test is too complicated: the interface is too complicated; simplify it
- Must mock everything: the code is too coupled; use dependency injection
- Huge setup: extract helpers; if it stays huge, the design is wrong

## For bug fixes

Write a failing test that reproduces the bug. Then RED-GREEN-REFACTOR. The test proves the fix and prevents regression.

## Final rule

```
Production code → a test exists and was written first and failed first
Otherwise → not TDD
```

Attribution

Is this your skill, or is something wrong with this listing? Request removal or report an issue. Author removals are honored within 72 hours.

Comments

Loading comments…

Newsletter

Get the weekly list of safe new skills, and the ones we pulled.